sysvr4

What are you talking about? Faithfulness is completely irrelevant; what is at issue is broken logic and inflammatory hyperbole.

Really? How exactly is genetic mutation acted upon by natural selection comparable to a 5 year old tinkering with various mechanical devices? I'd really like to see such analogies justified. You will likely never draw blood from this proverbial stone, Itinerant Lurker.

I only wanted to comment on the mathematics.

Understanding is why we discuss things, but we don't necessarily have to agree.

Is agreement the objective of discussion?

Why not? Given sufficient time, material, and knowledge, building an SUV out of a motor scooter should be relatively simple, even if the end product no longer bears resemblance to the original structure. Simple? How well do you understand engines, chassis, etc.? Very well. Then please explain the simple progression from one to the other, OK? Creating false dilemmas won't progress this discussion. Given sufficient material and time, modification of a given array of simple machines is obviously possible. An exhaustive technical description of the process is not necessary to support the concept.

Why not? Given sufficient time, material, and knowledge, building an SUV out of a motor scooter should be relatively simple, even if the end product no longer bears resemblance to the original structure. Simple? How well do you understand engines, chassis, etc.? Very well. Then please explain the simple progression from one to the other, OK? Creating false dilemmas won't progress this discussion. Given sufficient material and time, modification of a given array of simple machines is obviously possible. An exhaustive technical description of the process is not necessary to support the concept.

Why not? Given sufficient time, material, and knowledge, building an SUV out of a motor scooter should be relatively simple, even if the end product no longer bears resemblance to the original structure. Simple? How well do you understand engines, chassis, etc.? Very well.

Aren't those essentially the same thing?

Why not? Given sufficient time, material, and knowledge, building an SUV out of a motor scooter should be relatively simple, even if the end product no longer bears resemblance to the original structure.

And that means . . . what? ... Essentially, it means that if you make a lot of little changes over a long time, you'll end up with what would appear as a larger change.

Imperceptibly small changes made over any sufficient length of time cumulatively result in macroscopically significant changes.

I have no interest in the evolution debate, however I will point out that mathematics is merely an artifact of human consciousness; it has no bearing on whether or not something was intelligently designed. Any sufficiently large set will contain apparent patterns. An artifact of human consciousness? Mathematics? So it's some slapdash holdover from....uh, what? In order to be an artifact it would need to be left over from a previous state. Would that be the amoebas we supposedly evolved from? I'm sorry but any accident that repeats, forms closed areas of repeatability and reproduces itself is NO accident. Even the most cement headed among us should recognize that. I'm not certain you're familiar with the use of "artifact" within this context. ar

I have no interest in the evolution debate, however I will point out that mathematics is merely an artifact of human consciousness; it has no bearing on whether or not something was intelligently designed. Any sufficiently large set will contain apparent patterns.

The Reason For The Season Of Grace Is Jesus Christ And Him Crucified And Now Is The Time To Seriously Discuss His Truth No Games The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: John 3:35-36(a) For Time Is Running Out and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36(b) So Are You Up To It Seriously? Love, Joe What leads you to believe that I am not a "serious" believer in Christ?

Well....yeah....no one was THERE except God. No one was where? You know, sysvr4, people who are always playing games are assumed to be juvenile. You know exactly what I meant. On occasion I post here while somewhat pressed for time, so I simplify questions to invoke discussion. No games.

Neither do I see your reasoning. I honestly don't understand what you're alluding to.

Truth is always objective. It is not religious, personal or relativist. Just as the earth was always round, even though a few hundred years back millions believed it was flat, what we believe or don't believe doesn't change anything (and there are still some who believe the earth is flat). One could say, "O.K, you believe the earth is flat. That's your truth. I believe the earth is round. That's my truth. If your truth works for you, cool. But this is my truth, and it works for me." That reasoning might sound tolerant, but it's not logical. Truth is not relativist. Jesus said that if we have enough faith, we could move mountains. Did He mean that if I firmly believe Jupiter is the third rock from the sun it'll move there and earth will be bumped out of it's place? No. That's not what He meant. No matter what anyone believes or doesn't believe, it has no effect on the truth. Truth is not dependent on what anyone believes or doesn't believe. Truth is always objective. There is no such thing as personal truth, relative truth or even religious truth, because no matter what religion teaches about God, He is what and who He is, and nothing can change it. Is that my truth? No. It's God's truth. If you've never met your father, you will never know him until you meet him and get to know him for who and what he is. It's the same with truth. And it's the same with God, because God = truth. And truth is truth, whether we believe it or not. It's not relative, subjective or religious. But it is knowable. You've presented your position (at length), however I don't see your reasoning.

[...] My theory is based on independent thought; personal logic. It doesn't depend on any other theory. Science isn't some sort of global collective in which everyone agrees upon the basis of time, space, matter, or anything else. Does thinking require an aim? What leads you to believe that it wouldn't? Objective truth? Religious truth? Personal truth? Relativist truth?

Dishonesty in the scientific community? Of course. Most frequently it stems out of the prioritization of appearances over actual research.

Well....yeah....no one was THERE except God. No one was where?

I had already started a thread about this theory, however it was promptly overrun by bickering. Hopefully it can survive and be of use here: The omniverse may be expressed as a multi-dimensional array, infinite in scope and density. Within the array patterns observed would necessarily be unpredictable, non-indicative anomalies of the scope of the array and therefore insignificant. To answer your question, a quantifiable beginning of time would appear impossible to know.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events." This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications. Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window. A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable. If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified. Bye, bye scientific method. It doesn't mean "everything we know" about anything goes anywhere. It may be valid to question its implications regarding empericism, however. What implications? For one thing, it has been long established that the past can be used to accurately predict the future. Tell me this: Would you loan money to someone who has a past history of not paying back those who have loaned him money? Would you trust a personal secret with a person who has a history of violating others' trusts? If the past is not a reliable inidcator of future events, why do banks check your credit history before giving you a loan? When a proseptive employer exmanines your employment history and checks with previous employers concnerning your job performance, punctuality and so forth, they do so because they understand that the past is a good indicator of the future. So even contexts that are not even scientific, this is an established principle. Even more so, operational science relies entirely on the past being an accurate indicator of the future. Astronomers, theoretical physicists, earth sciences, those who work in the fields of medicine etc., all depend on that principle. It is the heart of the scientific method. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Okay.... so could you be a be little more vague? Honestly, do you ever post anything that has any substance? The point is that selected events which correlate with specious assumptions do not support a rational argument.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events." This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications. Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window. A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable. If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified. Bye, bye scientific method. It doesn't mean "everything we know" about anything goes anywhere. It may be valid to question its implications regarding empericism, however. What implications? For one thing, it has been long established that the past can be used to accurately predict the future. Tell me this: Would you loan money to someone who has a past history of not paying back those who have loaned him money? Would you trust a personal secret with a person who has a history of violating others' trusts? If the past is not a reliable inidcator of future events, why do banks check your credit history before giving you a loan? When a proseptive employer exmanines your employment history and checks with previous employers concnerning your job performance, punctuality and so forth, they do so because they understand that the past is a good indicator of the future. So even contexts that are not even scientific, this is an established principle. Even more so, operational science relies entirely on the past being an accurate indicator of the future. Astronomers, theoretical physicists, earth sciences, those who work in the fields of medicine etc., all depend on that principle. It is the heart of the scientific method. Correlation is not causation.

"So past experience cannot be guaranteed to be a predictor of future events." This is significant. Everyone should make an effort to understand its implications. Yeah - it means everything we know about science gets thrown out the window. A theory only becomes reliable if, among a few other things, testing the theory is repeatable. If the past cannot be used to predict the future, then repeatability of an experiment becomes falsified. Bye, bye scientific method. It doesn't mean "everything we know" about anything goes anywhere. It may be valid to question its implications regarding empericism, however.